05-08-2025
Lord Krishna was first mediator...: Top court raps UP Govt in Banke Bihari Temple case
During the ongoing hearing in the Banke Bihari Temple case on Monday, the Supreme Court remarked that Lord Krishna was also a mediator. The top court's observation came while it was contemplating an interim committee to look after the management of the iconic Shri Banke Bihari temple at Vrindavan, in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh.'When you talk about mediation, he was the first mediator available. So we also try to mediate,' Justice Surya Kant is an area of extraordinary importance. We don't want to exclude anyone,' the bench said, while granting time to counsel for Uttar Pradesh to seek instructions regarding the interim arrangement.
The court also called out the Uttar Pradesh government for the manner in which the state secured an order impacting the management of the Banke Bihari temple without the court hearing its current representatives.'We don't expect the state to do this. You went behind their backs without even giving notice,' the court top court was hearing petitions filed by the temple priests challenging the Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, and also seeking modification of the Supreme Court's earlier order permitting the Uttar Pradesh government to utilise funds for the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in is not the first time the government has been questioned by the top court. In May, when this case was heard by a different bench, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why the state decided to "hijack" a litigation between two private Conduct, Alleges PetitionerSenior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, alleged that the state had 'sneaked in' and obtained a court order — originally related to another temple — without notice to the Banke Bihari temple's existing management. The court, he claimed, had no opportunity to hear the temple management before the May 15 order was passed, which was now being used to justify the the move 'startling,' Divan argued that the Banke Bihari temple is a private temple, and the state had no right to interfere without proper legal Questions State's ApproachThe ASG, representing the UP government, contended that the temple was not private, and those objecting to the ordinance were unauthorised persons. But the Court was not convinced.'Show us where this court ever intended to hear a temple representative? Why was there no public notice? We don't expect the state to move in this manner; the state should have informed,' the bench an example of how initiatives have been taken around the Golden Temple, the court added: 'Such initiatives can be taken at times instead of using legislative or executive power. You think people will say no if you speak to them? Instead, you went behind their backs.'advertisementThe court repeatedly asked the state: 'What stopped you from acquiring the land legally and paying compensation?'The court, however, clarified that the temple funds will have to be utilised for development and can't be pocketed by private persons in the name of a private Committee LikelyIn light of the controversy, the Supreme Court said it is inclined to form an interim management committee headed by a retired High Court judge. The local collector may also be included in the panel would oversee day-to-day temple affairs until the High Court decides on the validity of the ordinance.'Religious tourism is important. Heritage must be maintained. But there must be an ecosystem where pilgrims feel a sense of order, not mismanagement,' the court state has been directed to take instructions and revert. The bench clarified that the ordinance can be challenged under Article 226 before the High Court but stressed that, in the meantime, a balanced interim arrangement may be necessary.- EndsTune InMust Watch
